Brace yourself for a confusing explanation. I'm making a stupid little quiz site. Five question on the page. Answers stored in an xml file. Questions are displayed to players one at at time with an input for them to answer. When the player makes a guess for a particular answer, JQuery posts the guess to a php file that checks the answer against what is stored in the xml, and returns either 1 (correct) and or 0 (wrong). The post is triggered by the text input's keyup event.
I have a global array called remaining that stores the questions on the page that are still to be answered. This is populated on page load with the values [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. As questions are answered correctly, the appropriate number is removed. So if the player answers question one, remaining will contain [2, 3, 4, 5].
var current;
var remaining;
$(document).ready(function() {
// What question the player is on.
current = 1;
// Questions unanswered.
remaining = new Array(1, 2, 3, 4, 5);
$('#in').keyup(function() {
// Send answer to server to check if it's right.
CheckGuess($(this).val());
});
});
function CheckGuess(guess) {
if (guess.length > 2 && guess.length < 100)
{
$.post(
"class/check.php",
"current=" + current + "&answer=" + guess,
function(check) {
if (check == 1) {
AnswerCorrect();
}
},
"json"
);
}
}
function AnswerCorrect() {
// User guessed correctly.
if (remaining.length != 1) {
var next;
// Remove complete question from array of remaining values.
for (var i = 0; i < remaining.length; i++ ) {
if (remaining[i] == current) {
// Set the next question. It will be the next one in the array
// or the previous if the current question is the last in the array.
if (i != (remaining.length - 1)) {
next = remaining[i + 1];
} else {
next = remaining[i - 1];
}
debugger;
// Remove current question.
remaining.splice(i, 1);
// Get out of the for loop.
break;
}
}
// Set current as next.
current = next;
// Set the href for the next question.
var destination = "#m" + next;
// Scroll to next question.
$.scrollTo($(destination), { duration: 1000});
// Clear input box.
$("#in").val("");
}
else {
// Quiz complete.
}
}
It all works to some extent. But I'm having horrible trouble with some mysterious issue. I've stepped through it with FireBug and what seems to happen is:
(a). Page loads. I can see remaining has the values [1,2,3,4,5] as I want.
(b). Player enters correct answer for question one. "1" is then removed from remaining so it has values [2,3,4,5] as expected.
(c). Player enters correct answer for question two, but now as soon as FireBug hits any breakpoint I have set I can see that remaining has the values [3,4,5]. So before the function AnswerCorrect() is called 2 is gone. Where did 2 go?! Then when AnswerCorrect() does actually run it thinks the player is on question 3 (because remaining contains [3,4,5]). The overall result is that when the player answers question 2, both 2 and 3 are marked as correct.
I hope my explanation was somewhat clear. I've never understood anything less in my life. I don't understand what happens between point (b) and (c) above. I'm stepping through the code and I can't find where remaining drops "2". FireBug is letting me down. It doesn't seem to be breaking somewhere when it should. If I have a breakpoint on the split() I don't see the removal of 2 could be going on without me seeing it. Anyone have any clue? I'd really appreciate any help before I go mad.
EDIT - More Info
(Sorry for the slow reply, I was at work all day).
The real issue is that I can't see where the 2 is being dropped. One thing I was thinking that may be the problem (but I don't know enough about Javascript to know if this is possible):
The jQuery post fires frequently; every time the player enters a letter. Is it possible that AnswerCorrect() could be called multiple times simultaneously? So that two or more "instances" of AnswerCorrect() are running concurrently?
EDIT 2
I decided to give up on this method. I can't figure out the problem. I rewrote it so that now the post occurs on document load and the answers are stored server-side in an array. That's probably a better way of doing it anyway, since I only have one post to the server instead of many. And it all works fine now. Consider this thread solved.
I think you're heavily overcomplicating things. There is no need for a loop or a splice, and in your looping you're mixing array index with array value in attempting to figure out where you are. It is very very confusing--even if you had it figured out, the next guy to come along and maintain it would be lost (even if that's you 6 months from now).
You want the first item off the array, and you want the array length modified accordingly. For this you should use Array.prototype.shift(). I've rearranged some of your code for better practices, but tried to leave some of it in the same layout so as to avoid making it unrecognizable to you:
var remaining = [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ];
$( function()
{
$( '#in' ).keyup( function()
{
// Send answer to server to check if it's right.
CheckGuess( $( this ).val() );
} );
Next();
} );
function CheckGuess( guess )
{
if( guess.length > 2 && guess.length < 100 )
{
$.post(
'class/check.php',
{
current: + current,
answer + guess
},
function( check )
{
if( check == 1 )
{
Next();
}
},
'json'
);
}
}
function Next()
{
// User guessed correctly.
if( remaining.length )
{
current = remaining.shift();
// Scroll to next question.
$.scrollTo( $( '#m' + current ), { duration: 1000 } );
// Clear input box.
$( '#in' ).val( '' );
}
else
{
// Quiz complete.
}
}
I don't honestly see any logic errors in the code you have posted. I put it in a jsFiddle here with a simulated async check for correct and a view of the remaining answers every time. It seems to work for me. So, if your real code is having this issue you're talking about, then there must be something else to the code that you haven't shown us here.
One typical place that things can go wrong in an app with an asynchronous ajax call like this and some global state is that the async part might not be done right. It has to wait for the success handler of the server call before changing any state. If state is changed before that processes, then it may mess things up when it finishes.
What the other two answers have suggested are simpler ways to write the code if you can assume that the first question in the array is always the one being worked on. Your AnswerCorrect() code does not assume that the only answer being worked on is the first on in the array and is thus more general so if that is the case, then I don't think you can use the code from those other answers.
So, I think the answer to your question is that there must be more to what is causing the error than you have disclosed in your question because I don't see any serious logic error with what you have posted and the "simulated" jsFiddle that uses your code seems to work. So, what else is there in your app that you haven't shown us here?
EDIT:
The most common mistake when first using ajax calls is related to the asynchronous nature of the ajax call. When you make the call, it STARTS the ajax call and it happens in the background while the rest of your code keeps running. It does not finish until sometime later when the completion/success function is invoked. If you forget that fact and you do other things after you STARTED the ajax call BEFORE it has completed, then your logic will go awry. The sample you've posted here doesn't have that problem, but it would be my guess that there is more to your real code after the POST to the server and perhaps that is the source of the error/confusion. Since you are using some global variables to keep track of state, if you touch any of those global variables after the POST call and before the completion function is called (like to move to the next question), it will mess up your logic. The success function will come through and your global state will have been incorrectly altered. That's just a guess because all I have to go by is the code you've posted which doesn't have the problem you are experiencing.
If you want to post the real code or give us a link to the real page, we can take a look there.
Related
I'm using P5.js to make a connect 4 game that I later want to use to make some training data for a ML project. I'm just currently working on making some logic. In a separate file, (separate just so I can test ideas) I have it so you hit a number 1-7 as a row number, and then it will color in your spot on the board. I'm using the logic system to know how far down the colored block needs to go. I have some arrays corresponding to the columns, and for testing purposes, I have 4 columns of 3 down. A 1 represents somewhere a piece is, and a 0 is an open space. When in a column, I use a for loop to iterate through, and if i is a 1, and i-1 is a 0, change i-1 to be a 1. This effectively simulates the gravity of dropping a piece down. The problem is, when I run console.log, both before and after my logic, it gives my the same result, but it's the post logic result. I don't know why it won't log the correct pre-logic array. My code is:
row = [2];
nums = [
[0,0,0],
[0,0,1],
[0,1,1],
[1,1,1]
]
console.log(nums[row])
//console.log(nums[row].length - 1)
for (i = 0; i<= ((nums[row].length) - 1); i++) {
//console.log(nums[row])
// console.log(i)
if ((nums[row][i]) == 1 && nums[row][i-1] == 0) {
nums[row][i-1] = 1
}
/*console.log(nums[row][i])*/
}
console.log(nums[row])
Before I run the logic, it shoud log [0,1,1] and after it should be [1,1,1]. Instead, any time I run it on a row that gets changed, it logs the output twice. I don't know why it isn't logging the array before it gets changed first. Any help would be great!
Yes, this can be annoying, and you should read certainly read the linked comment. But for a quick/dirty solution, you can use a function like the following:
function console_log(o)
console.log(JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(o)))
}
then call console_log(nums[row]) instead of console.log(nums[row])
I am writing a Whack-A-Mole game for class using HTML5, CSS3 and JavaScript. I have run into a very interesting bug where, at seemingly random intervals, my moles with stop changing their "onBoard" variables and, as a result, will stop being assigned to the board. Something similar has also happened with the holes, but not as often in my testing. All of this is completely independent of user interaction.
You guys and gals are my absolute last hope before I scrap the project and start completely from scratch. This has frustrated me to no end. Here is the Codepen and my github if you prefer to have the images.
Since Codepen links apparently require accompanying code, here is the function where I believe the problem is occuring.
// Run the game
function run() {
var interval = (Math.floor(Math.random() * 7) * 1000);
if(firstRound) {
renderHole(mole(), hole(), lifeSpan());
firstRound = false;
}
setTimeout(function() {
renderHole(mole(), hole(), lifeSpan());
run();
}, interval);
}
What I believe is happening is this. The function runs at random intervals, between 0-6 seconds. If the function runs too quickly, the data that is passed to my renderHole() function gets overwritten with the new data, thus causing the previous hole and mole to never be taken off the board (variable wise at least).
EDIT: It turns out that my issue came from my not having returns on my recursive function calls. Having come from a different language, I was not aware that, in JavaScript, functions return "undefined" if nothing else is indicated. I am, however, marking GameAlchemist's answer as the correct one due to the fact that my original code was convoluted and confusing, as well as redundant in places. Thank you all for your help!
You have done here and there in your code some design mistakes that, one after another, makes the code hard to read and follow, and quite impossible to debug.
the mole() function might return a mole... or not... or create a timeout to call itself later.. what will be done with the result when mole calls itself again ? nothing, so it will just be marked as onBoard never to be seen again.
--->>> Have a clear definition and a single responsibility for mole(): for instance 'returns an available non-displayed mole character or null'. And that's all, no count, no marking of the objects, just KISS (Keep It Simple S...) : it should always return a value and never trigger a timeout.
Quite the same goes for hole() : return a free hole or null, no marking, no timeout set.
render should be simplified : get a mole, get a hole, if either couldn't be found bye bye. If a mole+hole was found, just setup the new mole/hole couple + event handler (in a separate function). Your main run function will ensure to try again and again to spawn moles.
I'm trying to modify the script from jsPsych library for linguistic and psychology experiment, here is a code which shows images in row and than user can answer.
You can set the time for how long the images will be visible, but only in group (=same time for every image), but I need to show the last and the one before last image different time. Couldanybody help me how to achieve that?
var animate_interval = setInterval(function() {
display_element.html(""); // clear everything
animate_frame++;
//zobrazeny vsechny obrazky
if (animate_frame == trial.stims.length) {
animate_frame = 0;
reps++;
// check if reps complete //
if (trial.sequence_reps != -1 && reps >= trial.sequence_reps) {
// done with animation
showAnimation = false;
}
}
// ... parts of plugin, showing answers and so on.
},
3000); // <---------------- how to change this value for the last and one before lastelement?
I don't know if this is enought to help me, but if not, ask me I will try to do the best. Thanks a lot in advance!
It is possible to use setInterval to show images using different intervals of time. Consider the following:
The control system shows images 1,2,…n-2 using the same interval of time, and shows images n-1,n using another interval of time (“setInterval”, 2015). Figure 1 is a process model of the control system in terms of a Petri Net. For the PDF version of this reply, it is an interactive Petri Net.
Figure 1
The mark for P_1 (m_1) is equivalent to the variable animate_frame. If m_1=0 then no image is shown. If m_1=1 then the first image is shown. If m_1=2 then the second image is shown. And so on. If a total of ten images will be shown, then the initial values are〖 m〗_0=8,〖 m〗_1=0, and〖 m〗_2=2.m_0 is used to control the use of the first interval of time. m_2 is used to control the use of the second interval of time. m_1 is used to show the image.
There are two execution or run logics:
The first execution or run logic (rn1) uses the first interval of time (e.g. one second). It shows images 1 to n-1. After showing image n-1 it removes the interval object, and schedules a new interval object for the second logic of execution.
The second execution or run logic (rn2) uses the second interval of time (e.g. four seconds). It shows the last image and then removes the last image from the display.
There are three ways to show the images. The first method (T_0) combines the display of the next image with incrementing m_1 by 1 and decrementing m_(0 )by 1. The second method (T_1) combines the display of the next image with incrementing m_1 by 1 and decrementing m_2 by 1. The third method (T_2) shows a blank space, removes the last image. At any given instant, none or just one of the computation logic T_0,T_1 and T_2 can occur. When none of the computation logics can occur, the execution logic ends; in other words, the interval object is cleared (e.g. clearInterval()).
Using the Petri Net in Figure 1 as a guide, the computer program for the control system may be organized as follows:
rn1
if (m_0≥1) {
// T_0
m_0=m_0-1
m_1=m_1+1
// update image using plugin API
} else if ((m_0==0) && (m_2≥1)) {
// T_1
m_2=m_2-1
m_1=m_1+1
// update image using plugin API
clearInterval(ai);
ai=setInterval(rn2,4000);
} else
clearInterval(ai);
rn2
if (m_2≥1) {
// T_1
m_2=m_2-1
m_1=m_1+1
// update image using plugin API
} else if (m_2==10) {
// T_2
m_1=m_1-1
// hide image using plugin API
} else
clearInterval(ai);
To start the control system:
ai=startInterval(rn1,1000);
Then rn1 will eventually call on st2, and rn2 will eventually end the process. If additional computations are needed (such as display_element.html("")) add them to rn1 and rn2.
References
“setInterval, different intervals for last and one before the last element (jsPsych)” (2015). Stack Overflow. Retrieved on Nov. 5, 2015 from setInterval, different intervals for last and one before last element (jsPsych).
Instead of setInterval, you can chain setTimeout callbacks. This will allow you to manipulate the delay between each function call. Here's how I would structure your function, and then implement the logic to determine delays for the final two tests.
var showImage = function(currTest, lastTest) {
display_element.html(""); // clear everything
animate_frame++;
//zobrazeny vsechny obrazky
if (animate_frame == trial.stims.length) {
animate_frame = 0;
reps++;
// check if reps complete //
if (trial.sequence_reps != -1 && reps >= trial.sequence_reps) {
// done with animation
showAnimation = false;
}
}
// ... parts of plugin, showing answers and so on.
// create a wrapper function so we can pass params to showImage
var wrapper = function() {
showImage(currTest + 1, lastTest);
}
if (currTest === lastTest) {
setTimeout(wrapper, your_other_desired_delay);
} else if (currTest - 1 === lastTest) {
setTimeout(wrapper, your_desired_delay);
} else if (currTest < lastTest) {
setTimeout(wrapper, standard_delay);
}
}
showImage(0, trials.length);
Disclaimer - I've tried finding an answer to this via google/stackoverflow, but I don't know how to define the problem (I don't know the proper term)
I have many small AI snippets such as what follows. There is an ._ai snippet (like below) per enemy type, with one function next() which is called by the finite state machine in the main game loop (fyi: the next function doesn't get called every update iteration, only when the enemy is shifted from the queue).
The question: How do I test every case (taking into account some enemy AI snippets might be more complex, having cases that may occur 1 in 1000 turns) and ensure the code is valid?
In the example below, if I added the line blabla/1 under count++, the error might not crop for a long time, as the Javascript interpreter won't catch the error until it hits that particular path. In compiled languages, adding garbage such as blabla/1 would be caught at compile time.
// AI Snippet
this._ai = (function(commands){
var count = 0;
return {
next: function(onDone, goodies, baddies) {
// If the internal counter reaches
// 2, launch a super attack and
// reset the count
if(count >= 2) {
commands.super(onDone);
count = 0;
}
else {
// If not performing the super attack
// there is a 50% chance of calling
// the `attack` command
if(chance(50)) {
var target = goodies[0];
commands.attack(onDone, target);
}
// Or a 50% chance of calling the
// `charge` command
else {
commands.charge(onDone);
count++;
}
}
}
};
})(this._commands);
I could rig the random generator to return a table of values from 0-n and run next 1000's of times against each number. I just don't feel like that is will concretely tell me every path is error free.
As you say, unit tests must test every path so you will be sure all works well.
But you should be able to decide which path the method will follow before calling it on your tests, so you're be able to know if the method behaviour is the expected one, and if there is any error.
So, for example, if there is a path that will be followed in only one of every 1000 executions, you shouldn't need to test all 0, 1, 2 ... 999 cases. You only one combination of results that behave distinctly.
For example, in the snippet shown you have these cases:
the counter has reached 2
the counter has not reached 2 and chance returns true
the counter has not reached 2 and chance returns false
One way to archieve this is taking control of the counter and of the chance method by mocking them.
If you want to know what happens when the counter has reached 2 and the next method is called, just pass a counter with 2 and call next. You don't need to reach 2 on the counter by really passing for all the code.
As for the randomizer, you don't need to try until the randomizer returns the value you want to test. Make it a mock and configure it to behave as you need for each case.
I hope this helps.
I have a JavaScript function that contains a for loop that iterates so many times.
After calling this function, the IE browser displays this message:
Stop running this script?
A script on this page is causing your web browser to run slowly.
If it continues to run, your computer might become unresponsive.
How can I fix this?
is there anyway I can disable this message from IE?
This message displays when Internet Explorer reaches the maximum number of synchronous instructions for a piece of JavaScript. The default maximum is 5,000,000 instructions, you can increase this number on a single machine by editing the registry.
Internet Explorer now tracks the total number of executed script statements and resets the value each time that a new script execution is started, such as from a timeout or from an event handler, for the current page with the script engine. Internet Explorer displays a "long-running script" dialog box when that value is over a threshold amount.
The only way to solve the problem for all users that might be viewing your page is to break up the number of iterations your loop performs using timers, or refactor your code so that it doesn't need to process as many instructions.
Breaking up a loop with timers is relatively straightforward:
var i=0;
(function () {
for (; i < 6000000; i++) {
/*
Normal processing here
*/
// Every 100,000 iterations, take a break
if ( i > 0 && i % 100000 == 0) {
// Manually increment `i` because we break
i++;
// Set a timer for the next iteration
window.setTimeout(arguments.callee);
break;
}
}
})();
The unresponsive script dialog box shows when some javascript thread takes too long too complete. Editing the registry could work, but you would have to do it on all client machines. You could use a "recursive closure" as follows to alleviate the problem. It's just a coding structure in which allows you to take a long running for loop and change it into something that does some work, and keeps track where it left off, yielding to the browser, then continuing where it left off until we are done.
Figure 1, Add this Utility Class RepeatingOperation to your javascript file. You will not need to change this code:
RepeatingOperation = function(op, yieldEveryIteration) {
//keeps count of how many times we have run heavytask()
//before we need to temporally check back with the browser.
var count = 0;
this.step = function() {
//Each time we run heavytask(), increment the count. When count
//is bigger than the yieldEveryIteration limit, pass control back
//to browser and instruct the browser to immediately call op() so
//we can pick up where we left off. Repeat until we are done.
if (++count >= yieldEveryIteration) {
count = 0;
//pass control back to the browser, and in 1 millisecond,
//have the browser call the op() function.
setTimeout(function() { op(); }, 1, [])
//The following return statement halts this thread, it gives
//the browser a sigh of relief, your long-running javascript
//loop has ended (even though technically we havn't yet).
//The browser decides there is no need to alarm the user of
//an unresponsive javascript process.
return;
}
op();
};
};
Figure 2, The following code represents your code that is causing the 'stop running this script' dialog because it takes so long to complete:
process10000HeavyTasks = function() {
var len = 10000;
for (var i = len - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
heavytask(); //heavytask() can be run about 20 times before
//an 'unresponsive script' dialog appears.
//If heavytask() is run more than 20 times in one
//javascript thread, the browser informs the user that
//an unresponsive script needs to be dealt with.
//This is where we need to terminate this long running
//thread, instruct the browser not to panic on an unresponsive
//script, and tell it to call us right back to pick up
//where we left off.
}
}
Figure 3. The following code is the fix for the problematic code in Figure 2. Notice the for loop is replaced with a recursive closure which passes control back to the browser every 10 iterations of heavytask()
process10000HeavyTasks = function() {
var global_i = 10000; //initialize your 'for loop stepper' (i) here.
var repeater = new this.RepeatingOperation(function() {
heavytask();
if (--global_i >= 0){ //Your for loop conditional goes here.
repeater.step(); //while we still have items to process,
//run the next iteration of the loop.
}
else {
alert("we are done"); //when this line runs, the for loop is complete.
}
}, 10); //10 means process 10 heavytask(), then
//yield back to the browser, and have the
//browser call us right back.
repeater.step(); //this command kicks off the recursive closure.
};
Adapted from this source:
http://www.picnet.com.au/blogs/Guido/post/2010/03/04/How-to-prevent-Stop-running-this-script-message-in-browsers
In my case, while playing video, I needed to call a function everytime currentTime of video updates. So I used timeupdate event of video and I came to know that it was fired at least 4 times a second (depends on the browser you use, see this). So I changed it to call a function every second like this:
var currentIntTime = 0;
var someFunction = function() {
currentIntTime++;
// Do something here
}
vidEl.on('timeupdate', function(){
if(parseInt(vidEl.currentTime) > currentIntTime) {
someFunction();
}
});
This reduces calls to someFunc by at least 1/3 and it may help your browser to behave normally. It did for me !!!
I can't comment on the previous answers since I haven't tried them. However I know the following strategy works for me. It is a bit less elegant but gets the job done. It also doesn't require breaking code into chunks like some other approaches seem to do. In my case, that was not an option, because my code had recursive calls to the logic that was being looped; i.e., there was no practical way to just hop out of the loop, then be able to resume in some way by using global vars to preserve current state since those globals could be changed by references to them in a subsequent recursed call. So I needed a straight-forward way that would not offer a chance for the code to compromise the data state integrity.
Assuming the "stop script?" dialog is coming up during a for() loop executuion after a number of iterations (in my case, about 8-10), and messing with the registry is no option, here was the fix (for me, anyway):
var anarray = [];
var array_member = null;
var counter = 0; // Could also be initialized to the max desired value you want, if
// planning on counting downward.
function func_a()
{
// some code
// optionally, set 'counter' to some desired value.
...
anarray = { populate array with objects to be processed that would have been
processed by a for() }
// 'anarry' is going to be reduced in size iteratively. Therefore, if you need
// to maintain an orig. copy of it, create one, something like 'anarraycopy'.
// If you need only a shallow copy, use 'anarraycopy = anarray.slice(0);'
// A deep copy, depending on what kind of objects you have in the array, may be
// necessary. The strategy for a deep copy will vary and is not discussed here.
// If you need merely to record the array's orig. size, set a local or
// global var equal to 'anarray.length;', depending on your needs.
// - or -
// plan to use 'counter' as if it was 'i' in a for(), as in
// for(i=0; i < x; i++ {...}
...
// Using 50 for example only. Could be 100, etc. Good practice is to pick something
// other than 0 due to Javascript engine processing; a 0 value is all but useless
// since it takes time for Javascript to do anything. 50 seems to be good value to
// use. It could be though that what value to use does depend on how much time it
// takes the code in func_c() to execute, so some profiling and knowing what the
// most likely deployed user base is going to be using might help. At the same
// time, this may make no difference. Not entirely sure myself. Also,
// using "'func_b()'" instead of just "func_b()" is critical. I've found that the
// callback will not occur unless you have the function in single-quotes.
setTimeout('func_b()', 50);
// No more code after this. function func_a() is now done. It's important not to
// put any more code in after this point since setTimeout() does not act like
// Thread.sleep() in Java. Processing just continues, and that is the problem
// you're trying to get around.
} // func_a()
function func_b()
{
if( anarray.length == 0 )
{
// possibly do something here, relevant to your purposes
return;
}
// -or-
if( counter == x ) // 'x' is some value you want to go to. It'll likely either
// be 0 (when counting down) or the max desired value you
// have for x if counting upward.
{
// possibly do something here, relevant to your purposes
return;
}
array_member = anarray[0];
anarray.splice(0,1); // Reduces 'anarray' by one member, the one at anarray[0].
// The one that was at anarray[1] is now at
// anarray[0] so will be used at the next iteration of func_b().
func_c();
setTimeout('func_b()', 50);
} // func_b()
function func_c()
{
counter++; // If not using 'anarray'. Possibly you would use
// 'counter--' if you set 'counter' to the highest value
// desired and are working your way backwards.
// Here is where you have the code that would have been executed
// in the for() loop. Breaking out of it or doing a 'continue'
// equivalent can be done with using 'return;' or canceling
// processing entirely can be done by setting a global var
// to indicate the process is cancelled, then doing a 'return;', as in
// 'bCancelOut = true; return;'. Then in func_b() you would be evaluating
// bCancelOut at the top to see if it was true. If so, you'd just exit from
// func_b() with a 'return;'
} // func_c()